Why should non-defense agencies of the government or administrative agencies be allowed to stockpile military weapons and ammunition? Should the armament of administrative agencies be banned?

Owatonna, MN Correspondent-There seems to be only one reason why non-defense agencies or administrative agencies of the government should be allowed to stockpile military weapons and ammunition. That reason is the extremely unlikely possibility that terrorists launch an attack on a particular building or group of people who work for that entity. Even if that were to happen, wouldn’t it make more sense to simply increase perimeter security at the at-risk facility so the attack might be suppressed before reaching the inside of the building?

The notion of stockpiling military weapons in administrative agencies such as the Food and Drug Administration or the Department of Veterans Affairs is so ludicrous it sounds like something from the movie Dr. Strangelove, or the book 1984 by George Orwell. If the lines between soldier and civilian are sufficiently blurred, eventually everyone in government will become soldiers. By default, the populace becomes essentially prisoners who are constantly being patrolled, monitored, and restricted from free movement by their armed captors. It sounds farfetched, but ideas, policies, and events perpetrated by people in positions of power have a way of spiraling out of control and producing myriad unintended consequences.

If the government is so worried about the safety of these non-military government agencies and employees, there may be a better solution to the problem than arming every government agency and office with the tools of war. Doesn’t it make more sense to withdraw our troops from the rest of the world and bring those troops home to protect the government infrastructure and personnel? The USA is persona non grata in most of the world anyway. Maybe removing our troops from overseas would have the “unintended consequence” of reducing the world’s risk of terrorist attacks, since the terrorists will have one less reason to rise up against the invading infidels.

Yes, we should ban the armament of administrative agencies and return those weapons to the appropriate military stockpiles. Only allow members of the military to use those weapons against foreign aggressors or, if need be, against domestic terrorists such as Timothy McVeigh.

Sheffield, Jamaica Correspondent– I’m a peaceful person. I believe in working things out over a cup of coffee and maybe a few candy bars. However, what I’ll never condone is violence at any level. It’s bad enough that the Government has to form a defense force to protect the innocent, but what I’ll never see through is a non-defense government agency such as the Animal and Plant Inspection Service amassing weapons amounting in millions. So much money that could be used elsewhere is spent on encouraging acts of violence. I do believe these agents shouldn’t stockpile military weapons and ammunition. Rather, they should focus on their administrative duties.

In fact, I believe the armament of these Government administrative agencies should be banned. Let the defense unit of the Government do their job. We don’t need anyone else wielding powerful military weapons. Take for example the Internal Revenue Service: Every year, they exceed $1 million on military gears and ammunitions. No, that’s not acceptable. I prefer the IRS collect and regulate our taxes instead of accumulating weapons of destruction.

Gastonia, NC Correspondent–Let me just start off by saying that those who come at this issue from a “black helicopters coming to transport the unbelievers off to re-education camps” standpoint need to have a stiff drink and sit down for a bit, because I’m going to explain where this idiotic stockpiling of weapons is coming from.

Our government is run by men (mostly) and women who when it comes to matters of money are locked in a long period of arrested childhood. If someone else gets a toy, they want the same toy…or preferably one that’s bigger. Since the attacks of 9/11, with even my own small-town police department being given funds to buy a “tactical breaching vehicle” that very much resembles a Sherman tank sans turret gun, the quickest way to fill up one’s toy box has been to invent a reason why you need guns. Lots of guns. Maybe some explosives, too!

The FDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, which is the department doing most of the buying of boom toys, does have enforcement powers which might occasionally need some muscle behind them. However, everywhere they do their business, there are local and federal law enforcement agencies which can (and should) be called upon to perform that function. Maybe the FDA staffers have FBI-level training…if they do, why not let them work for the FBI? I’d rather my FDA folks have training in botany, food safety, epidemiology, etc…

There’s no vast conspiracy here, folks, or at least not over this issue. What’s going on here is federal agencies behaving like toddlers enraged that other children have toys they don’t have. If my little N.C. town has a tank, then by all that’s holy the EPA oughta have at least an assault helicopter, right?

Prescott Valley, NV Correspondent-Non-defense agencies should not be allowed to stockpile military weapons and ammunition. There are no other reasons for their actions other than power, control and dominance, and their free license to do so. They have been given carte blanche to acquire and hoard these items at a record pace and they continue to do so with no intervention or outcries by other governing bodies and the public at large.

The question is why do administrative agencies like the Social Security Administration, the IRS, the Smithsonian Institution, or for some strange unknown reason, the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, an arm of the Department of Agriculture, need with guns, ammunition and military equipment? Some 67 federal departments, offices and governmental bureaus have spent billions on weaponry that could easily supply standing armies indefinitely.

If left up to the American public to answer these troubling questions concerning the stockpiling of weaponry by non defensive agencies, most citizens would respond that the government is ensuring that guns and ammunition are being distributed to these agencies in order to monopolize and maintain control of weapons distribution as well as keep them out of the hands of ordinary citizens. They want the control and power to maintain a hold over the citizenry. It appears to be a forward movement towards nationalization of weaponry and a blanket way of disarming the population and indirect infringement of individual rights.

In addition to federal control of military weapons and ammunition through these numerous agencies that involve apparent restrictive and secondary purposes concerning citizens, there may be more sinister and involved motives for the stockpiling of various weapons. Armaments in these large amounts could be strictly and purposely set aside in large quantities for the sale and distribution of them to other countries as well as to organized groups around the world, which seek to overthrow, dominate and destroy democratic societies and cultures in general.

The armament of administrative agencies should be banned. The branch of government that needs to stop the free rein acquisition of weapons is the Congress. They have the power of the purse to stop the flow of money to the agencies involved in acquiring and purchasing the weapons in the first place. Special congressional committees need to be established to determine the purposes and reasons behind the acquisitions. Only those agencies that need weaponry for the military branches and direct protection of the United States should be involved in weapons procurement. Even then, those processes and the agencies involved should have checks and balances within their administration and distribution of weaponry.

Government overreach continues on its ever determined path, and acquiring, monopolizing and stockpiling of weapons is just another power hungry grab in their movement towards domination and control of a free society and their fear of it.

John Adams

"Be not intimidated, therefore, by any terrors, from publishing with the utmost freedom whatever can be warranted by the laws of your country, nor suffer yourselves to be wheedled out of your liberty by any pretenses of politeness, delicacy, or decency. These, as they are often used, are but three different names for hypocrisy, chicanery, and cowardice."